Leaderboard

EUROPE Ukraine's President Fires Security Chief, Prosecutor General Reuters ian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy issued executive orders late on Sunday sacking the head of Ukraine's powerful domestic security agency, the SBU, and the prosecutor general. The orders dismissing SBU chief Ivan Bakanov, a childhood friend of Zelenskyy, and Prosecutor General Iryna Venediktova, who led the effort to prosecute Russian war crimes in Ukraine, were published on the president's official website. In a separate Telegram post, Zelenskyy said he had fired the top officials because many cases had come to light of members of their agencies collaborating with Russia. He said 651 treason and collaboration cases had been opened against prosecutorial and law enforcement officials, and that more than 60 officials from Bakanov and Venediktova's agencies were now working against Ukraine in Russian-occupied territories. "Such an array of crimes against the foundations of the national security of the state ... pose very serious questions to the relevant leaders," Zelenskyy said. "Each of these questions will receive a proper answer," he said. Zelenskyy appointed Oleksiy Symonenko as the new prosecutor general in a separate executive order that was also published on the president's site. ukraine president fires generals - Search (bing.com)

Dick, if you want an in-depth perspective on how divisive the issues of the role of Ellen White in Adventism was during the 60s and 70s, and are willing to read a 456 page book read: Valentine, Gilbert M., Ostriches & Canaries: Coping With Change in Adventism, 1966 to 1979. If you want a much shorter treatment, and from a slightly different focus see: Campbell, Michael W., 1919, The Untold story of Adventism's Struggle With Fundamentalism, 124 pages. Campbell, Michael w., 1922, The Rise of Adventist Fundamentalism, 144 pages. NOTE: All three books may be purchased from Amazon.

On a personal basis, for me to say what it meant to Ellen White, I would need to see a statement from her as to what it meant to her. I do not know of any such statement by her. Therefore, I consider all statements as to what she meant to be speculative and potentially wrong. But such statements could be correct. However, it should be clear that Ellen White could have been wrong in her understanding of amalgamation. I have no problem with that. Ellen White was subject to error. She was not without error. She did not claim to be without error. I have no problem with anyone who states that she was wrong in her statement on amalgamation.

Referencing circumstances prior to the flood. Nobody knows what went on in those days.

The official EGW Estate response contains the following statement which is found in the larger document cited below: “The only passages in Mrs. White’s writings that are of interest in this connection are found in Spiritual Gifts, volume 3, already mentioned and republished in Spirit of Prophecy, volume 1, in 1870. The first, in chapter 6, “Crime Before the Flood,” is this: But if there was one sin above another which called for the destruction of the race by the flood, it was the base crime of amalgamation of man and beast which defaced the image of God, and caused confusion everywhere. God purposed to destroy by a flood that powerful, long-lived race that had corrupted their ways before him.—Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, p. 64.” https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/752.8#8 Also see: https://whiteestate.org/about/issues1/unusual/scientific-issues/amalgamation-man-and-beasts/ http://www.adventisthistory.org/2014/03/25/amalgamation-ellen-whites-most-controversial-statement/

Tom, your position is one that should be respected and quite acceptable within the SDA denomination. You were not alone in taking that position. Personally, I would have greater agreement if you had stated that in your understanding it is against the Biblical teachings and the Christian should have no part in war. I could find other positions against war to which I would have greater agreement with you if you were to take them. My greatest disagreement with you is in your understanding as to what it meant to take the oath. In the U.S. system that oath is modified by the fact that people who develop conscientious objections to the requirements of their military service after they enlist are allowed to leave military service with an honorable discharge. In my military service, I helped a number of people, both SDA and members of other denominations be discharged from the service with an honorable discharge due to the fact that they had developed conscientious objections (Religious) to their requirements as to how they should perform that service. I served for 20+ years on active duty in the U.S. Army. and also in a National Guard unit and in a Reserve unit. In those Reserve units I did not drill on Saturday ever. I do not advocate that a so-called traditional SDA enlist in the U.S. military. I tell traditional SDAs not to enlist. So, do not misunderstand me. A traditional SDA will likely have religious problems. So, there is a sense in which you are correct. I acknowledge that. But, in one sense your position does not reflect the whole story.

In 1957 when I was 20 I decided that I could not take the military oath that is required and enter the military in any capacity including that of a medic. I applied for the I-0 on my own with no one to help me. I still have a carbon copy of my paperwork that I filed with Selective Service. The FBI checked all of my references and I got the I-0. At that time I-0 folks would serve in a government approved civilian capacity for two years and had to be 50 or more miles from. I had joined an Adventist offshoot group called the Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement during my decision making process. I was called to the ministry in that denomination and was given a ministerial exemption of IV-D by the SS. I have never regretted my not participating in the military. For me to take a military oath that I would obey the commander-in-chief (USA President) or superior officers in all of their commands would be to sell my soul. I realize that my stand about this is contrary to most of Christianity but I must follow my conscience whether others understand it or not. Most men that I know have all kinds of military service benefits, discounts, etc. but God has provided for all of my needs in many way, often totally unexpected. Our country extends much honor and benefits for those who serve in the military and I certainly have no issue with that. I respect other people's beliefs with no judgment whatsoever.